Comments on: The Aseity of the Son

By: Harry

Harry — Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:48:46 +0000

In reply to Harry. sorry posted this on the wrong "Aseity of the Son" episode.

By: Harry

Harry — Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:11:25 +0000

What is the term used at 43:15? “___________centric”. Not familiar with the word and cannot make it out. Thank you

By: RazorsKiss

RazorsKiss — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 23:03:53 +0000

Just throwing this out there, since I was asked this today. Why,precisely, doesn’t Calvin’s (or those of other theologians that were mentioned) same arguments concerning communication of deity apply likewise to communication of person, esp. considering Van Til’s respective advancement on this point? I can’t find any solid argumentation that positively presents why we should consider “person” as derivative. I might just be missing it, but most of the literature I can find speaks either of essentia as communicated, or why it *shouldn’t* be – but seems to assume that person, in any case, should. Any suggestions?

By: Mark G

Mark G — Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:42:16 +0000

I found this very interesting. I was surprised at the claim that Son is fully God, just as the Father is God and the Spirit is God, underived is a minority view in reformed circles. I remember teaching our kids songs “the Father is God, Jesus is God, the Spirit is God, three in one” when they were little. I am not understanding something, or missing something?

By: Richard Chelvan

Richard Chelvan — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 23:59:51 +0000

I don’t think I agree with Dr. Scott Oliphint. I think he over argues this whole issue which I think may be a non issue as far as Reformed Historical Theology goes. The persons or people he should be criticizing are the Remonstrants (Arminians) who in turn have influenced much of Evangelicalism today. The result being a weak doctrine of the Christ as auto-theos. A cursory glance at Dr. Richard A. Muller’s (who Dr. Oliphint considers nigh on omniscient in such matters) The Triunity of God which is volume four of his “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics” will show that, notwithstanding Oliphint’s understanding of Turretine, the generation(s) after Calvin were indeed faithful to Calvin’s ideas concerning the Aseity of Christ.
I need to read Brannon Ellis’s book to see what he says. But I think that Dr. Oliphint’s critique of Aquinas’s views is beside the point.